Recognizing rotated faces and Greebles: What properties drive the face inversion effect?

The fact that faces are strongly affected by picture-plane inversion has often been cited as evidence for face-specific mechanisms. It is unclear, however, whether this “face inversion effect” is driven by properties shared by faces or whether the effect is specific to faces as a category. To address this issue, we compared the recognition of faces and novel Greebles, which were specifically matched to faces along various stimulus dimensions. In two experiments, participants were required to name individual faces or Greebles following training at either single or multiple orientations. We found that performance systematically decreased with increasing misorientation from either the upright (Experiment 1) or nearest trained orientation (Experiment 2). Importantly, the magnitude of this orientation effect was similar for both faces and Greebles. Taken together, these results suggest that the face inversion effect may be a consequence of the visual homogeneity of the stimulus category, regardless of the category.

[1]  M. Tarr,et al.  Orientation Priming of Novel Shapes in the Context of Viewpoint-Dependent Recognition , 1997, Perception.

[2]  A. D. Yarmey,et al.  Recognition memory for familiar “public” faces: Effects of orientation and delay , 1971 .

[3]  N. Logothetis,et al.  IS FACE RECOGNITION NOT SO UNIQUE AFTER ALL? , 2000, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[4]  P. Thompson,et al.  Margaret Thatcher: A New Illusion , 1980, Perception.

[5]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  The Fusiform Face Area: A Module in Human Extrastriate Cortex Specialized for Face Perception , 1997, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[6]  M. Tarr,et al.  Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

[7]  Ken Nakayama,et al.  Normal Greeble Learning in a Severe Case of Developmental Prosopagnosia , 2004, Neuron.

[8]  S. Carey,et al.  Why faces are and are not special: an effect of expertise. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[9]  M. Tarr,et al.  Becoming a “Greeble” Expert: Exploring Mechanisms for Face Recognition , 1997, Vision Research.

[10]  R. Shepard,et al.  CHRONOMETRIC STUDIES OF THE ROTATION OF MENTAL IMAGES , 1973 .

[11]  Cindy M. Bukach,et al.  Beyond faces and modularity: the power of an expertise framework , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[12]  W. Sjoberg,et al.  Recognition Times for Rotated Normal and “Thatcher” Faces , 1992, Perceptual and motor skills.

[13]  Rachel A Robbins,et al.  No face-like processing for objects-of-expertise in three behavioural tasks , 2007, Cognition.

[14]  T Valentine,et al.  The effect of race, inversion and encoding activity upon face recognition. , 1986, Acta psychologica.

[15]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Basic objects in natural categories , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[16]  P. Bennett,et al.  Inversion Leads to Quantitative, Not Qualitative, Changes in Face Processing , 2004, Current Biology.

[17]  Pierre Jolicoeur,et al.  Orientation-invariant transfer of training in the identification of rotated natural objects , 1993, Memory & cognition.

[18]  Heinrich H Bülthoff,et al.  Image-based object recognition in man, monkey and machine , 1998, Cognition.

[19]  G. Bower,et al.  Depth of processing pictures of faces and recognition memory , 1974 .

[20]  P. Mcmullen,et al.  Effects of orientation on the identification of rotated objects depend on the level of identity. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  M. Tarr,et al.  Training ‘greeble’ experts: a framework for studying expert object recognition processes , 1998, Vision Research.

[22]  M. Riesenhuber,et al.  Face processing in humans is compatible with a simple shape–based model of vision , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[23]  V Bruce,et al.  Configural Features in the Context of Upright and Inverted Faces , 2001, Perception.

[24]  E. Cooper,et al.  The Priming of Face Recognition after Metric Transformations , 2002, Perception.

[25]  I. Biederman Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. , 1987, Psychological review.

[26]  P. Jolicoeur,et al.  Identification of disoriented objects: effects of context of prior presentation. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[27]  G. Hole,et al.  Is There a Linear or a Nonlinear Relationship between Rotation and Configural Processing of Faces? , 2002, Perception.

[28]  P. Jolicoeur The time to name disoriented natural objects , 1985, Memory & cognition.

[29]  D. Shinar,et al.  Effects of form rotation on the speed of classification: the development of shape constancy , 1973 .

[30]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Revisiting the Perception of Upside-Down Faces , 2000, Psychological science.

[31]  L. Spillmann,et al.  Thatcher Illusion: Dependence on Angle of Rotation , 2000, Perception.

[32]  M. Tarr,et al.  Activation of the middle fusiform 'face area' increases with expertise in recognizing novel objects , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

[33]  M. G. Eley,et al.  Identifying rotated letter-like symbols , 1982, Memory & cognition.

[34]  Are Greebles like faces , 2004 .

[35]  M. Kubovy,et al.  Mental Rotation, Mental Representation, and Flat Slopes , 1993, Cognitive Psychology.

[36]  V. Bruce,et al.  Mental rotation of faces , 1988, Memory & cognition.

[37]  A. Freire,et al.  The Face-Inversion Effect as a Deficit in the Encoding of Configural Information: Direct Evidence , 2000, Perception.

[38]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Is the Fusiform Face Area Specialized for Faces, Individuation, or Expert Individuation? , 2004, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[39]  Rachel A Robbins,et al.  Can holistic processing be learned for inverted faces? , 2003, Cognition.

[40]  R Lawson,et al.  The effect of prior experience on recognition thresholds for plane-disoriented pictures of familiar objects , 1999, Memory & cognition.

[41]  D. Perrett,et al.  Evidence accumulation in cell populations responsive to faces: an account of generalisation of recognition without mental transformations , 1998, Cognition.

[42]  Heinrich H. Bülthoff,et al.  Image-based object recognition , 1995 .

[43]  R. Bruyer,et al.  Effect of disorientation on visual analysis, familiarity decision and semantic decision on faces. , 1993, British journal of psychology.

[44]  M. Farah,et al.  Parts and Wholes in Face Recognition , 1993, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[45]  K. F. Scapinello,et al.  The role of familiarity and orientation in immediate and delayed recognition of pictorial stimuli , 1970 .

[46]  Bruno Rossion,et al.  Face inversion disproportionately impairs the perception of vertical but not horizontal relations between features. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[47]  D. Maurer,et al.  The many faces of configural processing , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[48]  M. Tarr,et al.  Learning to see faces and objects , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[49]  S. Ullman Aligning pictorial descriptions: An approach to object recognition , 1989, Cognition.

[50]  R. Yin Looking at Upside-down Faces , 1969 .

[51]  L. Cooper Mental rotation of random two-dimensional shapes , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[52]  Janice E. Murray,et al.  Is entry-level recognition viewpoint invariant or viewpoint dependent? , 1998 .

[53]  Bruno Rossion,et al.  Face inversion disproportionately impairs the perception of vertical but not horizontal relations between features , 2007 .

[54]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  Face perception: domain specific, not process specific. , 2004, Neuron.

[55]  Isabel Gauthier,et al.  Are Greebles like faces? Using the neuropsychological exception to test the rule , 2004, Neuropsychologia.

[56]  Michael B. Lewis,et al.  The Lady'S Not for Turning: Rotation of the Thatcher Illusion , 2001, Perception.